Wednesday, March 7, 2012

The Future of Your Freedom

This week's conversation between Freedomain Radio's Stefan Molyneux and Corbett Report's James Corbett is one of the most important, enlightening and relevant political dialogues I've heard. If you still think statism and forced governance are necessary evils, and society would somehow unravel without state power stealing your taxes and legislating your life, please take some time to listen. Voluntarism (a.k.a. Anarchy) and the non-initiation of force (the non-aggression principle) are absolutely fundamental pre-requisites to a moral and just society. But currently, there isn't a single voluntary government on Earth, so the very notion of freedom is often too much for people to handle, like crawling out of Plato's allegorical cave and seeing sunlight for the first time.

19
comments:

Beautiful bit of synchronicity! I'm currently having a debate on another forum regarding 'free man on the land' with violent opposition. Your description here regarding this video exemplifies this perfectly so after a viewing of it later I think I may well have to place it in front of those who seem to love their slavery so very much!

This was really disappointing. Molyneux sidesteps the question concerning the provision of services for the poor by talking about slavery. The only part of his answer that touches on the question is when he slams the state for taking over education. But tell me if my history is wrong, weren't most of the poor illiterate and uneducated in by gone times? Every answer he gives is like this. At one point he claims that insurance companies will stop people from polluting the air by buying up all the available land. Explain to me the difference between a Molyneux insurance company and a government?

Molyneux simply keeps telling us how bad governments are, but offers no solutions, especially against such things as secret societies and other forms of covert and organized power.

None of this is to say that anarchism, (rather than the strange beast Molyneux promotes called anrcho-capitalism) lacks a powerful body of theoretical and experimental knowledge. Anarchism offers at least some answers to these issues, and in would be great to explore how these can answers can be expanded and developed. Molyneux gets a F in my book, and Corbet, who I usually like, was simply useless in this interview. Sorry, but that's my take.

Hey Nonoun, the reason he side-steps such questions is because under self-rule, there are no forced, standardized public systems, therefore any answer is equally speculative. Under self-rule certain independent groups may set up charities or people might get more creative and personal about donating money and instead of traditional charity, venture out to find people who really need it. One of our friends makes bags full of a day's worth of meals then walks around and leaves them with homeless people.

So you think the current system provides for the poor? You think stealing money from everybody and redistributing a small percentage of it through bureaucratic public programs is the only way for society to take care of poor people? Why are they poor in the first place if not because governments have the sole right to print debt-based fiat currency which slowly (through inflation and interest) makes everyone poorer except those who run the printing presses (because the debt is mathematically impossible to pay off... the interest doesn't even exist in the actual economy).

As for the insurance company idea, again, under self-rule humanity gets the chance to get creative about such issues and speculating about how it might work out is, as Molyneux said, like saying that huge robotic machines would replace slaves in the cotton fields... no one would have believed it back then, but that's exactly what has happened since slavery was abolished. What will happen when forced governance is abolished? Nobody knows... that's the point... we all collectively get to choose and create our future instead of sitting back and letting the government/corporate psychopaths "protect" us and decide for us.

That's called a straw man argument. And putting words into my mouth. At no point do I claim that government provides for the poor. I'm well aware of the situation. My point is that capitalism doesn't provide for the poor either. Capitalism depends on products and services having value, which means they must be scarce. The more essential, and the more scarce, the greater the value that can be extracted. Scarcity means that some people — poor people — will go without or be under provided for. This is how resource conflicts emerge, and those who have advantages in terms of technology, resources and organization will dominate. Does that sound familiar?

The argument that charity will provide for the destitute is simply to replace the word government with charity. What sovereignty will those dependent on charity have? Dependent on government or charity, it's all the same.

My point is that anarchism does offer a way forward, but it needs greater intellectual vigor than Molyneux brings to the table. Anarchy promises a system that enables individual sovereignty within a collaborative environment in a finite world. The relationships between these elements needs rigorous theoretical and experimental work. Let me give an analogy:There are numerous types of houses around the world, from mansions to mud huts, houses built on sticks above the water, teepees, and igloos, and many more besides. Despite this amazing variety they all follow a basic form: a roof and some kinds of wall, an entrance in the wall, etc. People choose which type of house to build dependent on their needs and circumstances. Molyneux doesn't present a similar structure, a way of organizing the elements of sovereignty, collaboration and finite resources, in a practical or workable way. Anarchists need to present that basic flexible workable pattern.

Take Molyneux's suggested solution to a town facing a water company that uses fluoride. His solution: the people are free to move. Tell that to the people of New Orleans or Fukushima. The people in Fukushima are free to move to other parts of Japan, but many can't simply for economic reasons. They have no money to buy new houses, they can't find new jobs, etc, etc. Molyneux's solutions are not real world, even a real anarchist world. You have the freedom to move to another town? WTF

That's called a straw man argument. And putting words into my mouth. At no point do I claim that government provides for the poor. I'm well aware of the situation. My point is that capitalism doesn't provide for the poor either.

Then your point is a straw man to mine and putting words in my mouth, because I've never advocated capitalism or even anarcho-capitalism. I promote anarchy without a hyphen, because the second you add an adendum to freedom, it's no longer freedom.

In an anarchical world some people would choose to live "off grid" and provide all the resources they need to survive by themselves. Other people would choose to live in small communities and would set up various voluntary systems of exchange, resource-pooling, money or whatever they like.

Your use of the word "poor" loses most of it's meaning in an anarchical world. In a stateless society you stake claim to some available land and may live there free and untaxed for as long as you wish. The land provides you with all the resources you need for clothing, shelter, food and water. So right away, how is anyone "poor" when the free world provides it's abundance to everyone?

People are made "poor" through debt-based currencies, taxation, legislation, and other coercive state tactics. Then once they've created an underclass of poor, pity-worthy people, the state pulls on your heart-strings to give more money for more public programs to "help" (a.k.a. further enslave) these people and everyone else.

Remember anarchy simply means finding voluntary ways of solving society's problems instead of using force. That is all I'm advocating. It's a radical concept called "freedom" and sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in the world who actually understands it.

"Then your point is a straw man to mine and putting words in my mouth, because I've never advocated capitalism or even anarcho-capitalism"

Molyneux is advocating anarcho-capitalism. I'm critiquing him, and you seem to be supporting him. You're not an anarcho-capitalist? Great. Molyneux is, and the video reveals the emptiness of his ideas. It seems his every solution involves buying insurance, which is exactly how taxation is sold in socialist countries. National Health Service, it's a kind of insurance.

FREEDOM

" It's a radical concept called "freedom" and sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in the world who actually understands it."

How is freedom created? That seems a good question. It's not created by the absence of structure. Let me explain. Your hands are quite amazing things, they create the freedom for you to do all sorts of things. If you didn't have hands, if your arms ended just above the wrist, you'd have a lot less freedom. It's the structure of your hands that gives you the freedom. It's the structure of a fascist society to limit our freedoms. Structure and freedom are interconnected. What, structurally, does an anarchist society look like? No structure is like no hands. The freedom comes from the structure. Molyneux anarcho-capitalism doesn't present a structure that creates freedom; your vague answers are little better. I'm trying to ask an interesting question. What structures enable individual liberty, in cooperative networks, living off of finite resources. And to add to the problem we can't forget the problem presented by the roughly 4% of the population who are psychopaths and would enslave us all at the drop of the hat.

If you don't have a solution, don't sweep the problem under the carpet, or kick it into the long grass. Freedom comes from structure. You want freedom, you're going to have to find the structure that provides it.

Good points about Molyneux and your question gets right to the heart of our fundamental disagreement.

How is freedom created? That seems a good question. It's not created by the absence of structure. Freedom comes from structure. You want freedom, you're going to have to find the structure that provides it.

If by "structure" you mean an involuntary standardized system of governance, then freedom is most certainly created by the absence of structure.

Freedom is structureless. Structures are limitations. Freedom is limitless. Structure is to Freedom what Religion is to Spirituality! It's conforming to another person's pre-packaged box of beliefs.

And actually freedom is like energy; it cannot be "created" or "destroyed," only exercised. Everyone has the freedom to create any "structures" or "systems" they wish in a free society and if those voluntary structures prove useful then people will voluntarily obey them and they will flourish. If they prove useless, then people will abandon and disobey such structures/systems.

The take-home point though is that there is no perfect "structure" that will ever ensure freedom because the very definition of freedom means the ability NOT to conform to someone else's structure!

What, structurally, does an anarchist society look like? No structure is like no hands. The freedom comes from the structure.

It looks like how the people living at that time want it to look like. No structure is not like no hands. No structure is like the ability to attach whatever you want to your wrists, from human hands, to Wolverine claws, to Pirate hooks or Johnny Depp scissor hands. Voluntarism is the blank canvas freedom to paint whatever and however you like. Your quest for some "utopian structure" to "ensure freedom" is like fighting for peace or lying for truth. Freedom means freedom from any imposed structure or else it's not freedom.

This is getting interesting. And without seeming offensive I'll try to prove that you are wrong in your belief that freedom is structureless.

First, the structure of your hands provides you with the freedom to manipulate objects. Take the structure away and you have lost that freedom. The structure of your eyes gives you the freedom to see. The structure of your ears gives you the freedom to hear. Lose these structures and you lose these freedoms.

In the social arena, romantic love, for example, is most deeply enjoyed and explored if the person you love creates a structure with you. She agrees that you are now a couple. If she doesn't agree your love has little freedom either to express itself or to grow.

it is true that structures are limited. You hands have limitations. If you replace them with another structure, such as a pirate hook, as you suggest, that structure creates different freedoms and different limitations. However, structures can evolve, and some structures provide more freedom that others. A hand gives you more freedom than a hoof.The point being, that only when we understand the relationship between structure and freedom can we start to develop structures that create more freedom. The elite understand this relationship very well, which is why they are always busy developing their structures of control.

Now, perhaps I haven't yet persuaded you, so I will give you a chance to persuade yourself. Tell me one freedom that you enjoy, or would like to enjoy that does not involve some kind of structure. Even the freedom to daydream involves creating mental structures and trains of thought. And once you've fund your thing, tell me one thing that exists that doesn't have structure. One thing in the entire universe. Good luck.

This is getting interesting. And without seeming offensive I'll try to prove that you are wrong in your belief that freedom is structureless.

I agree it's getting interesting. But you're not going to be able to prove to anyone that "freedom is structured" because by definition true freedom must include freedom from whatever "utopian structure" you come up with.

"Building a utopian structure to ensure freedom" is perhaps the longest-standing, most hypocritical pursuit in history. No structure can ensure freedom because freedom requires the ability to completely disobey and disregard your structure. So "structured freedom" is an oxy-moron.

Take the structure away and you have lost that freedom. The structure of your eyes gives you the freedom to see. The structure of your ears gives you the freedom to hear. Lose these structures and you lose these freedoms.

Ask out-of-body experiencers and near-death experiencers if losing those structures resulted in them losing the freedom to see and hear. They will emphatically tell you that consciousness is primary and we are not dependent on eyes to see or ears to hear. Those abilities are inherent to consciousness.

In the social arena, romantic love, for example, is most deeply enjoyed and explored if the person you love creates a structure with you. She agrees that you are now a couple. If she doesn't agree your love has little freedom either to express itself or to grow.

The structure you two create is created by only you two and nobody else. Thus you use your freedom to create a voluntary structure you both enjoy, and that is fine. But the structure only exists in your minds and in reality you are both using your freedom every moment of every day to conform or not conform to that structure.

In anarchical society anyone can create any number of competing voluntary structures and if they prove useful, just like monogamous relationships, people will exercise their freedom in conforming to that structure. The obvious oxy-moronic hypocritical problem comes when you create a "utopian structure to ensure freedom" and force people to conform to that structure. That is not freedom.

"The structure you two create is created by only you two and nobody else."

Not true. Throughout history two people of the same sex, or different races, or different religions, were prevent from forming relationships, even stoned to death for doing so. There are still taboos, such as people who are married but not to each other, and more besides. But still, the point is that to enjoy be free to experience romantic love you have to create the appropriate structure, i.e. a relationship.

"No structure can ensure freedom because freedom requires the ability to completely disobey and disregard your structure. So "structured freedom" is an oxy-moron."

See above. regarding structured freedom. I've given you several clear examples of how structure creates freedom. If you want the freedom to fly you need a structure that provides lift, such as wings, at least while your having in body experiences.

You despair that you feel as if you are the only person who understands what freedom is, but I think you don't understand very much.

Everything that exists, as far as we can prove it exists, has structure, from the smallest atom to the entire universe, from thoughts to feelings and human relationships. Only non-existence lacks structure, and while non-existence has enormous potential it can only fulfill that potential by coming into existence. Like a blank sheet of paper, it's potential is only realized when it becomes a drawn sheet.

An anarchist society is like a house that we live in. You can live in all types of houses as I said before, but there is a fundamental structure which all houses share in common, a structure which distinguishes a house from, let us say, a tomb.

I can't say it anymore clearly. Structure creates freedom. Everything that exists has structure. If you are going to create a society that creates freedom for people you need to design a structure that does that, a structure that allows people to kick against and reorganize existing structures, sure. Just as someone might add an extension to their house, or decide to go live on a canal boat. However, the basic structure of an anarchist society, like the basic structure of a house, must be thought through.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Your welcome to disagree. Maybe one of us will get wiser sometime in the future.

I also can't say any more clearly that freedom is what naturally exists before structures are imposed. If anything, freedom creates structures, not the other way around. Forced conformity to some "freedom-ensuring utopian structure" is not freedom.

the basic structure of an anarchist society, like the basic structure of a house, must be thought through.

This is your main problem. You're thinking too much. You're trying to do society's thinking for them and come up with a perfect little structure for everyone to conform to. It doesn't exist man. And if it did, it wouldn't be "free" because freedom is the very ability to conform or not conform to your structure. Freedom is the state of nature. Freedom is for everyone to ignore your structure. Freedom is what exists before you start thinking about how to preserve it.

Imagine that you have no freedom to climb to the top of pole without a method that enables you, we'll choose a ladder for simplicity. The structure of the ladder creates the freedom to reach the top of the pole. Similarly, to reach a society that provides individual sovereignty in a finite world you need a structure that enables that level of liberty. The reason that you disagree is because you are in a biased dogmatic polarity trap. Let me try to help you out of it.

You are partly right. freedom creates structure. But equally, structure creates freedom. They are simultaneously arising phenomena. Freedom allows you to change structures, the structure creates freedoms, and around and around we go.

Let us say a man and a woman meet and form a relationship, a new social structure, their relationship. That relationship creates freedoms for both of them. They can share a bed together, move in, get married, have a baby, and create a new structure, a family, with little kids all over the place. That new structure gives them new freedoms, but limits others. You must be able to see that there is a relationship between freedom and structure, structure and freedom. In a physical world, at least, this one that we live in, and to live in as free people, surely you can see that your freedom will require certain structures that a radically different from the structures we currently have. As long as you are in a physical body, you cannot avoid or eliminate structures. Freedom is not structureless. Nothing that exists is structureless.

Fortunately however, there are quite a few anarchists doing the kind of work I talking about, trying to develop models and learn lessons that will help create functional anarchist communities. I was in one for about year, we also ran a couple of co-operatives, including an organic farm.

Here's an interesting book that discuss the kinds of structural issue that need to be thought through. It's focus is on education, but it's a good example of the kind of debate that needs to evolve.

Nonoun

P.S. It's quite common for people who don't understand something to be hostile and dismissive. Of course you think you're right. I do think I'm right too.

Looks like a great book. I don't think we really disagree about much except the definitions of "freedom" and "structure." Other than that, I think we're on the same page. Hopefully it made for an interesting debate for the other readers. Peace